Automated Cod Portioning Line
Industry-first automated cod portioning — from dismissed idea to a plant-closing automation program
01 — Results
$4M+
Capital project, board approved
0.8 yr
Simple payback
75 → 8
Headcount to FTE
1 plant
Closed, volume fully absorbed
| Metric | Before | After | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry precedent | None — concept dismissed by OEMs | First automated cod portioning line in operation | Industry first |
| Labor on the operation | 75 headcount | 8 FTE | −67 |
| Sites cutting cod | 3 locations | 1 automated line | 1 plant closed |
| Volume absorbed | Split across sites | Consolidated onto one line | 100% absorbed |
| Capital / payback | — | $4M+ installed | 0.8 yr simple payback |
02 — Challenge
Cod portioning was stuck on manual bandsaws across three locations, with 75 headcount and accuracy tied to individual operators. The concept of automating cod portioning had not been done in the industry.
The portioning-equipment OEMs would not even entertain the idea until there was a proven business case backed by real R&D trials. Without that data, there was no path to board approval or funding, and the labor/throughput problem stayed structural.
03 — My role
Capital authorization, BOD package, execution
Timeline: Commissioned June 1, 2025
04 — Scope
- Engineered, proposed and proved the concept even though automated cod portioning had not been done in the industry and the portioning-equipment vendors originally dismissed the idea
- Built the business case on a foundation of extensive R&D trials, plus a blind sensory study — no distinguishable difference from hand-cut product
- Two portioners, RF tempering retrofit, impingement freezer, conveyance, electrical and ammonia refrigeration piping
- Shut down a legacy cutting facility entirely and absorbed its full pre-cut volume into the automated line
- Labor model rebuilt from 75 headcount on manual bandsaw cutting to 8 FTE running the automated line
- Deglazing-before-portioning process change validated against real-time production flow
- Full line controls scope defined end to end — VFD-driven conveyance, deglaze and glaze recirculation, impingement freezing, metal detection and case sealing under one main control panel
05 — Execution
- Persisted through vendor skepticism and ran the engineering trials myself to generate the data the OEMs and leadership needed to see
- Built a business case anchored to trial data proving the process and a blind R&D sensory study showing no distinguishable difference from hand-cut product
- Two automated portioners with an RF tempering retrofit, impingement freezer, conveyance, electrical and ammonia refrigeration piping
- Deglazing-before-portioning process change validated against real-time production flow
- Full line controls scope defined end to end — VFD-driven conveyance, deglaze and glaze recirculation, impingement freezing, metal detection and case sealing under one main control panel
- Shutdown of a legacy cutting facility and relocation of its full pre-cut volume onto the automated line
06 — Systems & technology
- Automated portioning
- RF tempering
- Impingement freezer
- CAR / BOD
07 — Artifacts & evidence
- Company award recognizing the line as an industry first, citing ~75% labor reduction and elimination of bandsaw portioning — conceived, designed and executed by me
- Board-approved CAR / BOD package with savings verified at commissioning
- Blind sensory-study result supporting the product-quality case
- 3D line layout from infeed to outfeed
08 — Key takeaways
Vendor 'no' is a data problem, not a stop sign. Once I had trials behind the business case, the quote arrived.